Pappas begins: "There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy."

Klansmen display their affinity for the days of the Confederacy, February, 19, 2010. (photo: Ian Butterbaugh/Media Matters)

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience.com

28 January 12

here's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy Ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and Bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A Study of Averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple Viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

One of the things that Americans have to deal with is the fact that the majority of working-class Americans never experience life in a foreign country (and I am NOT including Canada or the tourist areas of Mexico or Cruises to Jamaica and the Bahamas). If children could experience living in another country on their own, but by staying with an indigenous family for several weeks during their teens, then there would be a much better understanding between people!

You must be reclusive, sir as that is a very dumb remark.Many Churches, Temples in this country do exchange programs with other Churches etc with children from all different backgrounds to live at other homes during summer sometimes a whole year to experience what it is like for the other side, to experience life with a family.Many of these children have been from other Countries.I went to school and many girls from other Countries boarded at my school. It was not free. Some of these girls were from Rich families some from very poor. Fact was we boarded together, it was a good thing but sad also for many.Some of the girls and their other members were seperated as the family was under attack. I learned to stop thinking about myself...too bad American all do not learn to do this

And this is somewhat seen in the GOP primary attacks on Romney because he can fluently speak French and Huntsman for fleuntly speaking Chinese. Other cultures, other languages, other religions are all...other...and therefore to be despised for an ignorant racist. Hence why this attacks work so well in a GOP primary...and wouldn't play well at all in the General or in the Democratic party...

Thank you for bringing Mark Twain into this subject ..."In any situation there are more stupid people than intelligent ones." --- Ken Kesey"Against stupidity, even God is helpless." --- Goethe"Not all Conservatives are stupid ... but most stupid people are conservatives" (And I cannot recall who that is attributed to.)

My question is, "Who is surprised by the results of this study?" You'd have to be as stupid as the subjects of the study to be surprised because this is something I've known for a long time. You can't argue with the Tea Party folk 'cause they know everything (although they know nothing). Historically, the Tea Party is like the famous (or infamous) Know-Nothing Party that existed over a hundred years ago. Made up much of the same people, they refused to accept anything as truth, even when shown that their beliefs were wrong. And it took a study to let us all know this? Why do you think the GOP makes such an effort to destroy education in those states it controls like Arizona? They WANT an illiterate voting public because they know they can control these people. Just spend enough money on commercials during NASCAR or WWE events and you've inoculated them with the "group stupidity" serum. They'll believe whatever you show them. Another point to add to this is that, as in the South after the Civil War, these folks need to have someone they feel superior to, so having immigrants as the boogeyman creates a group you can blame for every problem faced by the U.S. Don't blame the GOP for being narcissistic, do-nothing, feel nothing bullies, it's always someone else's fault. Joseph Goebbels has to be proud of the roadmap he provided for the Koch brothers and the GOP on how to control a society.

So, Stupid is as Stupid does, we knew something was amiss with that bunch. They gave themselves a name: Teabaggers. Now we know why they are so stupid. Shame you can't fix Stupid. Thanks for proving what we already thought.

dorian, I looked this article and comments over well, and nowhere did I see that you were assigned to give us your opinion on our comments. I stand by my comment. If you don't like our comments, well, that's your choice. I don't like yours either, but I don't play critic with them.

Barbara K:The purpose of commenting on Posts is to offer opinions which may reinforce a comment or criticize it. You do make sweeping generalizations which in logic is regarded as "illogical". You are very passionate about your political beliefs which is good but you really need to develop your reflective skills. Sorry if I have offended you but an authentic dialogue consists of free discourse and if a person is open-minded and has the desire to improve their cognitive processes and writing skills; there is much to be learned from a good critic. On the other hand, if a person is defensive and assumes they have nothing to learn or reflect on, they will remain static in their thinking because they assume they already know all there is to know. Read the 3rd paragraph prior to the end of the article.

The entire article is sweeping generalizations. I'm not your student or your child and I don't need your critiques. My opinions are my opinions and I stand by them. I use the word "our" as I notice that you seem to push your critiques on many others on here, which is something I don't do. I do, however tell someone if they gave me a laugh with a comment, that is not critiquing, it is commenting.

Barbara K: I apologize for offending you. However, a Post is an open debate & debate has always involved "critique" & well-thought out comments that stimulate the dialogue. If you were my student, hopefully you would be more open minded & enthusiastic to enter into a "free disource" without becoming defensive. I understand your political passion and the current Republican POTUS candidates are too fascist, misogynist, rascist, homophobic & uncaring for those in need which includes the middle class to get my vote. Your sweeping generalizations "Never Vote Republican!!" (& others)defy the very basis of logic which I've taught, and need to be critiqued so you can reflect upon how you might make your case more effective and believable.I do not know how old you are, Barbara K but I am of the opinion that you are much too old for me to regard you as a child. Student, yes. Child, no.

A bit offensive for someone telling people how to Vote? His or her opinions are just as valid as yours or mine."If you don't like our comments" sounds weird also either you are many people or you are telling others how we feel. I usually agree with your comments but this one is a bit strange.

So, Stupid is as Stupid does, we knew something was amiss with that bunch. They gave themselves a name: Teabaggers. Now we know why they are so stupid. Shame you can't fix Stupid. Thanks for proving what we already thought.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future is at stake, really at stake

Actually our future is at stake(and in peril) no matter which party you vote for! Read Glann Greenwald's "With Liberty and Justice for Some" and you will see why voting for either party is a waste of time. Money control - intelligence, or the lack of it, plays a minor roll. By the way, you can fix stupid - the only hitch is that there's a 25 to life sentence attached to its eradication.

tm7devils: LOL! Well, they are not worth 25 to life sentence, are they? Yes, I find the voting system to be rather scary the way the Republican Govs are trying to suppress voters. But that is our only hope and the only "power" we have left. We must get out and vote. Look what happened last time when so many Dems sat on their hands and see where we are now. I guess I've lived a long time and I still am an optimist. We cannot surrender our hope. We just must be vigilant and watch the voting polls with patrols if necessary until we can get some better voter machines. Don't give up, we just cannot afford to do that, just too much to lose; and thanks for giving me a giggle.

Racism. Conservatism. Ism. Anyism. Less broad people tend to find comfort in numbers. The flip side to the above story would be that the fascist conservative is more evolutionarily fit because the tight knit army ant style is mankind's most characteristic trait. And War, of course. And we need them to hold us together. They are the temporal ballast of our America and the elite knows how to move them.

Liberalism has its idiot pool as well. Myself, for example. I have gone over to Paulism because of who he is. He is a physician who sees his nation sick and sees the illness and its major locus and offers to do something about it. No one will say that he is dishonest. We already KNOW about all the rest of them. What is the law in New York? One lie from a witness and we may disregard all testimony? Hmmm. They're all guilty, multiple felonius counts. Except Ron Paul. We need to follow the money and Ron Paul will show us how. The elite may crash the economy on purpose to destroy Paul if they cannot arrange his personal demise. But they will then be dispatched completely. We'll see.

I have very little problem with Ron Paul's international policies, and some of his economic policies appear to be sound. But what he says he'll do domestically as president is frightening. President Paul would leave as his legacy a more uneducated, unhealthy population than we have now, if that's even possible. Paul's views on reproductive rights alone are so backward it amazes me that young people in particular seem inclined to support him. Just because Ron Paul walks his talk doesn't mean he'll lead us in the right direction.

Right-wing beliefs are expressed in simplistic slogans, easily retained. Those who accept and regurgitate them are comfortable with these easy-to-swallow credos. They are suspicious of complexity, and reject ideas that require analysis. Hence the virulent opposition to science, aided and abetted by equally simplistic religious dicta. Not all on the right are low-IQ -- some are just mentally lazy rather than measurably deficient.

I think it also has to do with the family that you are born into. People are conditioned down through the generations to support one way of life: one political party, one church, one family, one race, etc. Most don't bother to ask themselves if there's another way to live. This American society encourages that clannish way to look at things, a good old rich boys network that keeps us distracted with circuses. It's quite a spectacle for those of us who are awake, and there's nine months left to go.

To a certain extent what you say about socialization passing through the family is true. But there are possibilities to change by being exposed to different situations.

The Peace Corps is a good example. It helps you understand what other people live through and how they can find joy under situations that most Americans could never tolerate.

I was a Goldwater type in high school because most of my classmates were republicans. (My county was the only county in the state that went for Goldwater.) Then I went to a liberal college where my convictions were challenged and there came a point where I couldn't support them rationally, so I changed.

Texas Aggie: What a great comment. The ability to listen to ideas different from your own and reflect on and analyze those ideas which challenge conditioned assumptions is the cognitive flexibility the author associates with a higher IQ or higher intelligence. You got it, girl friend!

"There are possibilities to change by being exposed to different situations."..."my convictions were challenged and there came a point where I couldn't support them rationally, so I changed."

Does this not also shed light on the "religious right's" persistence in calling themselves "Christian" -- when those who study the Gospels are astounded at this claim? If Jesus is in any way involved in the materialistic, often murderous and ever-self-serving dogma of the "Right's" preachings, the rest of us have yet to see it. Instead, the so-called "Christian" right is almost wholly involved with BC stories from the Old Testament. It IS much simpler that way. Often, God would say, in effect, That tribe over there is NOT like you. Their valley would make a nice piece of land for your settlement so go over there and kill those people. Even babies. They are nothing to you! MUCH easier to deal with than Jesus's demanding. "Love your neighbor as yourself." And if you pass a man bleeding in the ditch, you better stop and help him -- even if he is not like you at all!Such thinking is WAY too much trouble -- and too generous -- for a "conservative" mindset. Not of our tribe? Our skin-color? Our RELIGION? HAH! What's a bomb for, anyway?

Number one God never said anything...Creation occured..then we were on our own to fend. We emulated animals for survival.I am tired of people talking about the Bible it was a Diary written by man, that is all. If we really evaluate the life of the people in the Bible, most were pure examples of the Sins...Venial, Mortal and etc. The same people who bring up Bible seem to believe all the Holy Books/Diaries were theirs alone. When the Tribes moved on, their children migrated they all took parts of that same diary with them so for the Faiths that came from those who wandered that Storybook was given different names. I have read so many books on past, on civilizations and most people still have no clue on how this could be. So stupidity has been passed down thru centuries, people only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear. Jesus demanded Absolutely Nothing of us. He gave us enlightenment, what we learned...certainly questionable in the World today no less on here.

fox devotees need to learn a little history, no?:"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in ANY sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mohammed-ian nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mohammed-ian nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."Treaty of Tripoli [1796] presented and endorsed by JOHN ADAMS, American patriot, founding father, signer of the Dec of Independence, president of the USA (1796-1801) and ARCH-CONSERVATIVE (authored alien and seditions act)! (international treaty supercedes all laws passed by the states...us gov't 101, people!)

Bud, you seem to not be part of this universe. You need to check the relationship between the prosperous states and their political affiliation. You will find that those who have the money tend towards the left while the whiners on the right are the ones taking the money. It's only when you get to the top 0.1% that you find right wingers.

No one is suggesting that people who actually earn their money should have it taken from them. The thing that upsets decent people is how too many of the uberrich rightwingers got their money. And how they manipulate the legal system (buying legislators) to keep more than they deserve while working people get the shaft.

Patty, Are you saying no one on the Left got wealthy during the financial crisis and/or is the 99% fiscally? Obama is a multi-millionaire as are many Left wingpoliticians. There are exceptions, such as Bernie Saunders and I believe Elizabeth Warren, Black and white, all or nothing thinking has serious flaws in argumentation.

What a great response. dorianb appears to be one of those apologists for the right who actually believe Quayle, Bush, Bachmann, and Palin are intellectuals who are just misunderstood. There is no true basis for the right to be considered lacking in intelligence, rather it's because of their ability to use both sides of their brains to investigate and analyze the true motives behind that nasty LIBERAL mentality. This is how they justify their racism, which they claim is not really racism but is rather acceptance of true "facts" as invented by pundits like Rush, Bill-O, Annie C, Sean Hannity, et al. Let's not let ourselves spend time actually investigating issues, just listen to one of the aforementioned pundits to get OUR position on the issues. I guess that saves time they can spend watching NASCAR, ultimate fighting, OC, Jersey Shore, and WWE, the really important things in life. Again, Regina, kudos to you, you hit the nail on the head!!

bigahuna671: I am not a right apologist or left apologist and do not believe that Palin and the others you mention are intelligent and misunderstood. Palin is poorly educated, hypocritical and as lacking in compassion, understanding of constitutional law and dangerous to our democracy as Rick Santorium. I was very relieved when Bachman got out of the race because she was dangerous. Quayle was out of the running when he mispelled potato. Bush has been over-commented on so I'll leave it alone. Regina made an excellent comment which I also remarked on.

IQ is part genetic (one's potential) & part nurture (how environment develops one's potential). By controlling nurture (e.g. poverty, education, media) the elites try to control IQ development and people. Very old strategy. Yet for those intelligent enough to recognize these mechanisms of control, such negative environments still produce brilliant individuals (often revolutionaries). So the elites must either corrupt (assimilate) them or get rid of them to maintain control.

I am a firm believer in political equality & direct or "true" democracy (not what we have today & despite its limitations) yet I always struggle with the reality that most people DO want to be led & controlled (Nietzsche's herd). For Socrates, true democracy was an amateur form of government for the ignorant masses. this study seems to legitimate the idea that the intelligent should rule/be enfranchised/be the elite (thus Plato's Republic). Ultimately (& arguably) a totalitarian system, but might it not really be for the best? Should stupid people have the political right to fuck this country up? I don't mean joe 6-pack (although en masse they do enough damage). Take stupid people with simplistic world views & give them money & other forms of power (W for example), what happens? Creating rule by the intelligent would be painful problematic, & revolutionary, yet???Maybe there's so easy answer & maybe I'm just a dumb neanderthal grasping for simplistic solutions.

"Naturally, what makes patriotic and religous fanatics such dangerous opponents is not the death of the fanatics themselves, but their willingness to accept the death of a fraction of their number in order to annihilate or crush their heretical/infidel enemy. Fanaticism in war, of the type that drove recorded Christian and Islamic conquests, was probably unknown on Earth until chiefdoms and especially states emerged within the last 6000 years." pg 282Guns, Germs & Steel : The Fates of Human SocietiesBy: Jared Diamond

Which is why they always look at problems backwards, upside down or inside out. Example, the now infamous remark of Newt's that Obama is the Food Stamp President. Those that take it as actually meaning anything have not taken a couple of moments to think it through.

This is the left wing bane. We tend to think things through and not react to the sound bite.

Well, this certainly opens a can of worms! I can think of a number of factors that must be considered. To begin with, just what criteria are used to measure I.Q.? What kind of educational system is used which might distort the results? Our current system increasingly teaches to the "left or dominant side of the brain" whereas those who are more right brain dominant tend to be evaluated as having a lower IQ rather than just a different expression of intelligence. For example, those with Left brain dominance tend to compare differences whereas those with right brain dominance tend to see similarities. This was brought out dramatically during the McCarthy era where the artistic "right brained" members of our society were accused of being communist in many cases just by association whereas they simply accepted others for their humanness overlooking their differences of religion, race, politics, etc.

Bev: Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity because his left logical brain was in sync with his right innovative brain. Genius's such as Einstein, Da Vinci, Mozart, Plato, etc. invent,produce and perform ingeniously not because one side of the brain is more dominant but because both sides of the brain are extremely well balanced.

Are you so sure of this. It is proven that Science still to this date is guessing at how our brain works. All of us are geniuses, some of us just never given the chance to prove the potential.

I personally do not believe the brain is well balanced. There are doorways and compartments we have so much data in. Sorry we obtain data before we even enter this world...no scientist has even proved that nor can they. If you autopsy someone do you really think the well balanced brain is obvious compared to the mediocre one? Yes tell me about those elecrodes and all the tests. Then it would seem that you believe all tests by Science are true and factual...that is very scary.

Do you know where the brain gets its messages from? Do you know which organ is the largest producer of messages to the brain. You do realize that we use almost none of the senses we have so much of our brain is never awakened because we have become so lazy. Our ancestors, tasted, smelled, felt, their skin sent messages we cannot imagine. Our Brain in this century is robotized so when the Einstiens come they are looked upon as Gifted. Believe ourselves not to be, sad part of our Evolution. Animals learn still by using their senses and ability to evaluate situations. Problem is we have material weapons now not that we are the Hunter any longer. We are just robots, sheeple, whatever because we chose to be.

Bev, I believe that we have a serious problem with our educational system, it is too tightly wound to economic thought. We need to back off and leave students to explore all aspects of information acquisition/accumulation/learning. We need ask that teachers demand students employ more deep investigation.

Our whole approach to information is stunted and unable to address even the most basic of questions, and this is why the conservative movement is impotent, quite like a dead language. I very much doubt America(and THE WORLD) will be able to move forward in our current paradigm, a paradigm that is narrowly focused on economic growth and has a illusory system of wealth creation, where monetary wealth has value? What is that value?

Capn Canard: You're an educator & our educational system and acculteration of wealth as the highest value is the current paradigm & as illusory as you state. You understand monetary wealth & the power it brings is impermanent & elusive & without value. Real value is intrinsic (ie), integrity, respect for self & others, compassion, honesty. Being non-negotiable when it comes to living your values.

How we as a nation are going to be able to move forward and ascend in "our current paradigm" is very troublesome because it is the deficits in our educational system & dependence on computers rather than investigative, reflective, analytical thinking, & our obsession with wealth & power that has brought us to an age that can best be described as unenlightened, uninspired, ill-informed and lacking in problem solving skills. This is most apparent in our politicians & government leaders who seem unable to see the forest for the trees. They lack innovation & commitment,

Capn Canard, You are my hero! We are living in a time when we seem to have gone backwards regarding "enlightenment" and downwards regarding comprehension of "values". This may be why we no longer seem to have or value heroes.

Again you are all expecting the educational system to do Your Jobs. Do babies come out of the womb and go to school now? Because that is what it seems like you are telling me.Do we have children and turn them over to Teachers? I believe if we did we may actually have some good kids.Sorry problem with Education is the Parents, Family and People we surround them with, materials we have at home, videos, tv. That is what they know from infancy until we give them over for everyone else to do our job.Conservatives, Democrats who Vote Party only are not intelligent. I believe in support but there is nothing wrong with voting for the right candidate, looking at new Parties, backing local citizens...

If we do not teach our children to question, than they will only follow. That teaching starts from the first toy, first game we play with them.

KittatinyHawk: The posters have over-looked the many excellent points you brought to light in this comment. Education begins & is reinforced in the home with "materials we have at home, videos, tv", books, discussions, etc. & in the multi influences surrounding our children, "parents, family & people"-& experiences,cultural opportunities,etc. You made an excellent point about how intelligence is involved in "voting for the right candidate, looking at new Parties" rather than voting robotically for one party you believe in & support. You may have misunderstand Capt Canard's & my comments about problems & deficits we find inherent in our educational system, This was not a criticism of the teachers. Our youth are being educated with an over-emphasis on standardized tests & ends-over-the-means-methods stifle innovative thought & love of learning. It also hinders problem solving inherent in investigative learning. The Teachers are not to blame. They are underpaid,over worked & not given the respect, time or training they need & want. The more compelling problem in our educational system is our nation's obsession with money, celebrity & "posturing", which has demoralized the intrinsic worth of a value system. "What is value?" Capt Canard asks?This is the most important question that should be asked in a school room & home. You rock, Girl Friend!

Democrats Pretending that the Klan that they created and supported for 150 years was not theirs, Pretending that their collectivist thinking - that is deeply embraced and an absolute philosophical requirement for racism (portrayed even in this article as branding all conservatives as low brow haters) is a non issue.

Racism is necessarily collectivist - the values, accomplishments, dreams of individuals are ignored and replaced by the collective branding that 'they are all like' fill in the blank.

When will the collectivist understand one of the great republicans who pointed out that he dreamed of a day when people will be judged individually by the content of their character and not collectively by the color of their skin?

KittatinyHawk: I believe you have descended to the level of finger-pointing and name-calling. Simply out of simple respect I have previously declined commenting on some of the most glaring and egregious errors in your posts, namely your spelling, syntax, grammar, sentence construction, and punctuation. These simple literacy lessons are ALSO taught (and hopefully learned) in junior high school, not to mention grammar school.

Just a suggestion: In the future you will probably want to refrain from calling the kettle black!

Re: Martinfre. I looked up "collectivist" because I don't remember hearing any group referred to in this way recently. I think it must be a very old idea or Martinfre has just shored up the comments in this article.

This looks like another attempt to brand Democrats with the kind of thinking we are all sick of hearing from Republicans/Teapartiers.

It doesn't fit Democrats or liberals I know at all. In fact, we are so diverse that we don't ever know what to call ourselves. We never agree. We can't please the whole panorama. But the one thing we do have in common, in my opinion, is that we are open to new information. We can take it in without being stressed by the effort, mostly. We have the tools to research it and make informed decisions. And, most importantly, we can change our behavior if need be.

This article does lend support to my assertion. And for me, it jibes with my experiences. Even the caveats which are the ideas that keep me from depending entirely on profiling. But it is terribly hard some days. The thing this article really helps with is deciding who are truly stupid and who are treasonous. The smarter people whipping the less intelligent into frenzies with lies and hate language are betraying their own Country.

I don't understand your remarks. Perhaps you could define "collectivist?"

fair nuff

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

What you've just described is an authoritarian state which is what the right wing demands. Research on authoritarianism by Dr. Altemeyer over more than 25 years has shown that the right wing is strongly authoritarian, which links to the idea of prejudice against the "other" whatever the "other" may be.

For more evidence that the right wing is authoritarian, let me offer the fundies themselves who want to set up a "christian" government where they will decide what god wants and will broke no opposition. Also, note that the hierarchy of the Catholic church, an authoritarian organization if there ever was one, has a surfeit of right wing types.

well that's certainly what we have now. we're all chained to the "common good" capitalist-christian-(pseudo-)democracy (e.g. too big to fail, bailouts, give up liberty for security); we're chained economically, socially, and politically by an increasingly fascist system

When I went to the search button there are many definitions of this some political because everyone has to label everything. But a good comment on the web brings Ayn Rand into the forefront of defining it.Amazing it takes me a second to punch in these words and get answers

Martinfre: I rarely agree with your comments because you are quite negative but you make some interesting points here. Your comment about Democrats creating and supporting the Klan is not one of them but the generalization and collectivist statements are food for thought.

It is nicer if you do agree with me but It is irrelevant if you agree with me or not. But I do hope you understand what I try to say.

side note: The klan is the child of democrats, do your own research.

But far more important is grasping the difference between the philosophy of real individual rights vs phony collectivist gang rights.

You do not have rights because your black or white or asian or christian or atheist or muslim or ... Rights exist as inherent property of your individual existence.

Inherent rights are individual - they exist with or without government. Inherent rights cannot be granted by government, but like any common thug government can take them away. Once your right to life is removed - your dead. No thug, no gang, no government can give it back. Legitimate government protect inherent rights.

Martinfre: Now that you have further explained your comment; I must take back my comment that your comment in your last statement is "food for thought."Not only the generalization-collectivist comment I miscomprehended but all your comments which worsen as you pontificate on them are totally indigestible and quite obnoxious.

Speaking of research, if you actually did some, you would find that the people who are members of the Klan are republicans and that the people who were instrumental in its emergence ended up republicans. And who was it that your research tells you pushed and signed into law the Civil Rights Act? And which party opposed it then and still opposes it?

You are the one who needs to do research. Post Civil War the conservatives were Democrats and the liberals were Republicans. In other words, the klan is the child of conservativism. That's the truth but hey conservatives like you hate the truth.

Perhaps you speak of the so-called "Southern Democrats"? Lincoln was a Republican, and the people of the Confederate states embraced the *opposite* political party, quite by choice. Those Southern Democrats included the klan, to be sure.

JFK, as President, and RFK as Attorney General (both Democrats) fought the racist policies in the South. Perhaps it was this effort that cost them their lives, but we may never know for sure. Certainly it was what cost MLK his life shortly after he spoke the words you quotes (above).

Lyndon Johnson, by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1974, *lost the South* for generations, where they now vote with the Republicans. As the post above points out, the parties have flip-flopped. One has to include these nuances of History to make a cogent argument among those of us who have lived, and participated in that History.

Get your facts together, Martinfre! Following LBJ's Voting & Civil Rights Acts of 1964-5, the Southern Klan and all of its pecker-wood, Dixiecrat supporters became "Democrats for Reagan". They bailed out of the Democratic party and traipsed over to the GOP - where they were so welcomed that they hung around, highjacked the Republican party and control it to this very day!

Your reference to MLK, jr was noted, but - unfortunately - it was missed by most reader.

Martinfre,You are truly a piece of work. There is a post below by AdamC that gives a sensible & accurate historical overview of Dems, KKK & Repubs. You say this article brands "all conservatives as low brow haters" when it clearly includes that there are "very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals." But I would agree w/ the article that prejudice comes mainly from the Right; but not necessarily because of simple stupidity but because of an upbringing through generations that clings to antiquated stereotypes that were overt & glorified in earlier years that promoted, e.g., racial supremacy, Victorian-era patriarchy, an "old time" religion, THE rugged individual, unregulated, parasitical profiteering, along w/ the inevitable consequences culminating as the "natural order of things." I don't doubt that education level plays a role, but heritary traits & upbringing intially mold the mind. And it's not just a lower educated group that can be prejudice. A wealthy individual can be, and has been, prejudiced sometimes underneath a veneer of sophistication. Again, you're obssessed w/ that word "collective" w/ not a clue of understanding its meaning; but it's again that 19th century thinking or "thinking." Repeat this slowly, several times: "By nature, humans are both individual & collective." To deny this is to deny reality. I suspect you've been a long reality denier & that has led to your irrational statements.

Martinfre,Again you intenially distort in quite a glib & cynical manner, & again deny reality. You're implying that MLK was a Repub when of course he was none of the kind. Then you do the Orwellian twist again w/ his slogan: Of course, you knowingly added the words "individually" & "collectively." Your 19th century tunnel vision has caused you to be quite discredited considering your lack of understanding of certain human traits & their meanings; along w/ trying to be distortingly clever. I & many here already know your slick banter, thus the evident wave of thumbs down. You keep on tickin but you've certainly taken a lickin. Back to the 19th century w/ you.

So what you are saying is that the right wing is collectivist since they are the ones who are denying rights to every minority they can think of.

For example, they are the ones who are trying to prevent killing gays as being a hate crime and who are trying to deny gays their rights as human beings to have a family (both marriage and adoption). They are the ones denying rights to African Americans and Hispanics by preventing them from voting. They are the ones denying rights to women by taking control of their reproduction. So by what you say, you must agree that it is the right wing that is the collectivists.

Martinnotsofree,Saying MLK was a Repub is like saying a KKK member was a Black Panther. There are individual rights & collective rights. Individual rights allow an individual to make personal choices, to express personal, specific talents & opinions. Collectivism allows an individual to contribute, along w/ other individuals, to a collective cause/endeavor, usuing his/her specific talents/opinions & combined w/ others' talents/opinions to become a potential force to e.g., work for change, win a sporting event, win an election, operate a business, etc. And it can be helpful when there is the sharing of the burden or strength in numbers. Further, there's a better chance for equal participation, say under socialist rule, as opposed to say an unequal relationship between capital & labor under capitalist rule. Individualism & collectivism can be separate and/or together. But regardless, both are an inherent reality that can promote rights specifically &/or generally. Only an irrational denier would deny this. Far from being correct, you are a DENIER. As a RUGGED individual, you have the right to go it alone, but literally; no collective help, e.g., no business or social connections. Your time machine will leave soon. Better get on board, & set the dial for a date in the 19th century.

Democrats Pretending that the Klan that they created and supported for 150 years was not theirs, Pretending that their collectivist thinking - that is deeply embraced and an absolute philosophical requirement for racism (portrayed even in this article as branding all conservatives as low brow haters) is a non issue.

Racism is necessarily collectivist - the values, accomplishments, dreams of individuals are ignored and replaced by the collective branding that 'they are all like' fill in the blank.

When will the collectivist understand one of the great republicans who pointed out that he dreamed of a day when people will be judged individually by the content of their character and not collectively by the color of their skin?

You have an interesting definition of "collectivist," one not shared by either the left-wing inventors of the term or most of their right-wing foes.

And an even more interesting definition of "republican," consideriung that the quote comes from Martin Luther King Jr., who's usually identified as a Democrat (and, by his right-wing enemies, as a "collectivist," meaning Marxist, as well).

Interesting. According to the best information available to me, the Klan began in Indiana. It was based on strong ideas about what people should do with their lives, how they should behave. Long before any modern party came into being the 3/5th clause was in our Constitution. The notions about what should be done and who should do it has a long history. The present conversation in America is about social power, who has what. There is nothing being considered that embraces a society worthy of your time.

Very sad education. People with Hatred, People needing Power, People who listened to Preachers teaching Fear, People started Hate Groups. Foolish People think KKK was first Hate Group. Then you are all obviously still in Jr High School. Hate Groups started within Cave Men. Greed, Survival, Jealousy all the original sins started Hate. They started in the Garden went forward.USA had a Religious hate group on those first Boats, in fact two or three...Religious hatred of Heathens, English Hatred/Greed, Settlers These groups went forward and Colonized other areas, some might have been squashed in one area but they left and settled elsewhere. I do not believe any one group started the KKK except Hate Mongers and they were condoned then as now by Churches, Temples etc.

I do not believe at one time they were called either name. Democrats were Republicans if you go back and read your history book. Stay in School

Let me get some clarity here. In telling those of us on the Left what we think without the benefit of our feedback, you are suggesting that all of us, without exception, are characters in some kind Ayn Rand dystopia that does not honor the individual. And our big problem is that our collectivist thinking predisposes us to have sweeping presumptions about other groups of people. You do not like this because making sweeping statements about groups of people is bad.

A thing to keep in mind is that the way intelligence is measured it will tend to favor those who think more flexibly in problem-solving. There is also a strong emotional component to cognition. As such, attitudes, beliefs, and emotional habits or problems will directly affect 'effective intelligence' and what is commonly measured and though of as intelligence, although the term is greatly underdefined when analyzed.

I've found that much of what is called 'conservative' is not conservative, in the truest sense, but authoritarian. It is common for 'liberals' to be authoritarian -- they simply rigidly believe in the 'liberal ideology', rather being 'liberal' or flexible in their cognitive processing.

Naturally, people who are intellectually challenged -- less intelligent in general -- tend to gravitate towards 'conservatism' and authoritarianism because it's easier to follow rules and rigid principles than to do critical thinking.

It isn't the same question if you frame it in such different ways. A problem with most any sort of survey question is that it reduces compex issues into over-simplified binary choices (a thing that the current crop of 'conservatives' like to do).

A better question is "What health care should every member of the society have by the rights the society agrees on, and how should that system work?".

Terms, including 'conservative' and 'liberal' are under-defined, and refer to radial categories, and that's problematic but is not the same as being meaningless or fraudulent.

I'm afraid that existence and the world are not actually very simple at all -- which is one aspect of why 'conservatives' have a hard time dealing with them. Conservatism is good for carrying cultural values and tribal knowledge down the generations, and reacting to straightforward issues such as 'should we run when we see a tiger?", but it isn't very good at dealing with complexity or sophisticated knowledge.

Bob Altemeyer's own work has shown that authoritarianism is more a characteristic of the right than the left. George Lakoff as well has shown that the authoritarian "stern father" model is characteristic of the right wing while his "nurturing parent" model is characteristic of the left wing.

Agree with most of what you say, but George Lakoff, his narcissistic articles notwithstanding, is NOT a great 'anti-authoritarian' figure to be quoting, considering his self-serving anti-woman positions at Berkeley in the past.

Interesting study that confirms general observations that even Martin Luther King eloquently described.The other day I overheard a conversation amoung 5 year olds concerning the Bell's choice of the Beast in Beauty and the Beast. One of the girls said she wouldn't ever like the Beast because he was ugly. The other two girls said they liked the beast because he turned out to be nice. I wonder....

It truly is as simple as that. One girl only sees what is on the surface. The other two see beneath the surface. The firstis superficial and the second is heart centered. My heart singsfor those two who truly see. My compassion goes to the other whoat this time lives in darkness.

wwway: You almost said what you're trying to say. Keep going..Finish the point you're making. I know I love the beast because what he is intrinsicly is so much more important than what he appears to be. Extrinsic qualities are so often inauthentic and come and go in a flash. Intrinsic or internal qualities come from the soul of a person and are eternal.

If our politicians were more like the beast who is an icon for being true to your internal nature as opposed to using appearances and spinning rhetoric to garner votes, our world would be a betterplace.

1) The Democratic party of 150 years ago, which while it didn't start the KKK certainly made use of it, is not the Democratic party of today--which in turn is not the Democratic party that emerged from the Depression, which was really two parties--the Northern New Deal coalition and the Southern Dixiecrats. When the Northern wing of the party started a serious commitment to black civil rights, the Southern wing tried to split off in 1948, then left in droves to the GOP after 1964-5 with the passage of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, which were pushed through by a coalition of Northern Dems and liberal Republicans. With Nixon's "Southern Strategy (crafted by Roger Ailes among others) the white South abandoned the Dems and went solid GOP. Thus the very basis of the modern GOP is opposition to equal rights for people of color--even if not all Republicans are consciously racist. The continual overt use of racist appeals by *all* the major GOP candidates in the current campaign makes this very clear. Meanwhile most of the Dems in Congress have been bought off by the same corporations that own and operate today's GOP.

AdamC: I think I love you because you have written such a beautiful and intelligent post. BUT in regard to "collectivism" (when used in the way I believe MARTINFRE intended); it is less dangerous as a "catch-all ternm than the sweeping generalizations we see again and again on this post.

Martinnotsofree,It sounds like you're shapeshifting your argument a little. You intially berate the article for saying that ALL on the Right are low thinkers, while it did say that some cons are intelligent & some libs not-so-bright. It wasn't totally B/W. You continued to take a side berating Leftists for harboring the equivilent of a "collective" type of Stalinism. And that's wrong. And you continued all the way through w/ your it's individualist or collectivist & nothing in between fantasy. You called MLK a Repub. Now, you're not for clinging to labels. Does that mean you'll let go of your obsession w/ the word collective? I don't think so. While gov. still exists, why not put it to positive use? Using funds to "promote the general welfare" as it says in the U.S. constitution. Public education, public healthcare, a right to housing, a decent, living wage &/or profit-sharing job, etc. These are needed for humans no matter what for survival & to prosper & thus can be considered rights. Meanwhile, you're left alone w/ your 100% individualism, the illusion that one man is an island.

It is no coincidence that tomes of liberalism, such as UC Berkeley and other high-end SAT schools are predominantly liberal, No, SAT scores are not IQ tests, but they are indicative - there is a correlation between SAT's & IQ's, but commitment, hard work and surrogate test takers can also be factors.

That said, I contend that there IS an easily demonstrable correlation between smart-vs-dumb and liberal-vs- conservative;

Generally, when making decisions, liberals seek a consensus. They are willing and able to recognize that there are always several ways to solve any one problem. Once acknowledged, there is too much talk & confusion and too little constructive action - especially when trying to reach a consensus with conservatives.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend toward hard line orthodoxy - my way or the highway - and from that narrow perspective they are right (pun intended). They avoid considering alternative solutions to common problems, because that puts too many balls in the air and that, in turn, threatens their tediously built & jealously guarded status quo.

It takes much less intelligence to adopt & hold a pre-fabricated, special interest position than it does to think critically about all possible alternatives . . . and to arrive logically at that which works best for the general good for all.

. . . It takes much less intelligence to adopt & hold a pre-fabricated, special interest position than it does to think critically about all possible alternatives . . . and to arrive logically at that which works best for the general good for all.

Excellent post, maddave. Good explanation for those who adopt such a simplistic mentality ("my way or the highway"): it's so much easier to go along with black-and-white (no pun intended) thinking than to admit there are many gray areas and NO simple answers. I have long felt that masses of people simply do not want to think. It's too hard, too much trouble, so they go along with ideologies that play to their fears and long-held beliefs without really looking at them.

There was another article about why people vote against their own interests. This piece goes a long way toward explaining that -- they can't reason well enough to understand what they are doing and realize they are being manipulated.

Oh, and MLK, who said that, was not only not a "republican" (other than that he did not favor a restoration of monarchy) but worked with the Dem leadership, especially LBJ, to get the Rights Acts passed. After that, Dr. King devoted himself more and more to protesting economic injustice and the Vietnam War, and was calling for a post-capitalist, cooperative society based on full democracy and social justice at the time he was assassinated. He was in Memphis to speak in support of a strike by sanitation workers.

May I suggest that you did deeper into history than a few sound-bites and libertarian ideological platitudes?

Oh, and MLK, who said that, was not only not a "republican" (other than that he did not favor a restoration of monarchy) but worked with the Dem leadership, especially LBJ, to get the Rights Acts passed.

According to his niece..MLK and his father were both Republicans:

By Dr. Alveda C. King – Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy defeated sitting Vice President Richard Nixon in the bid to become president. The black vote swung the tide! My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a Republican and father of Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr. who was a Republican. Daddy King influenced a reported 100,000 black voters to cast previously Republican votes for Senator Kennedy even though Kennedy had voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law. Mrs. King had appealed to Kennedy and Nixon to help her husband, and Nixon who had voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Law did not respond.

Adam, I am quite aware of MLKs economics - a fail, but that does nothing to diminish the genius he has shown on the world when it comes to individual rights and equal treatment under the law and peaceful civil disobedience to bad laws.

Hmmm...I dropped out of MENSA because of the right wing bias, including racism, expressed in the local meetings. A couple of us tried to express the left wing side of things, but we got bullied so much that I dropped out. Your statement and my rebuttal are both anecdotal and don't serve much purpose....doncha think?

Yeah, lincolnimp, I do think, but in this case, in disagreement with you. Our divergent experiences serve to show that there are no simple answers & examples and that drawing on stereotypes to prove a point is a tricky business . . . something that racists seem unable to assimilate.

You want anecdote? I give you anecdote: some years ago - before i got better - I was essentially excommunicated by the local Unitarian Church for my open support of a prominent republican. So much for the d clean fresh air of open debate!

Similarly, I know a great many atheists, but not one that arrived at his/her position without a great deal of thought. I know no Christians that arrived at their position with any thought whatsoever. And to throw in some more generalizations, most atheists are liberals, and most scientsts are atheists. For more good reading along these lines, check out "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris and "The Age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby.

Clearly? In fact I know a great many Christians and almost all are great folks indeed, but every one was either born to his/her current religious persuasion or changed to it from whatever one he/she was born into. On the other hand, nearly all atheists I know were also born to some religious calling but came to be disillusioned and moved away from it, in many cases I might add with much agonizing and never without a great deal of thought. One does not easily leave behind something taught from childhood and which is likely very important to family and friends...it takes serious thought and much conviction to do so. Do mellow out a little. My atheism does not call for any evils to befall you. You are probably a great guy and chances are I would like you a lot, just as I do my many other Christian friends.

Most of the atheists I know - and all of the agnostics - have an ongoing dialog within themselves & their community in search of "the truth". I venture to say that, as a result of this "dialog", both groups "know" more about what they do not believe - and what they cannot accept - than do the fundamentalists whose mantra is "God said it; I believe it; and that settles it.

However, as a an agnostic Friend, I sometimes envy those truly faithful (Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, etc, etc, - choose one) who have their belief system solidly in order; who "walk the walk" and who show true compassion for their fellow humans and for our Earth. . . . . . Of course my envy diminishes drastically when one of them kills a Doctors who for performing legal procedures with which he/she disagrees . . . or publicly asks others to pray for the death of certain judges and public officials.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that mildly complex social issues are the reason for the conservative's inability to perceive these patterns of social behavior. On one hand the behavior is common so "everyone" is joining a Tea Party rally, but on the other hand many people, even a majority, are aghast and reject such behavior. Like capital punishment or anti-abortion. Neither one solves the incipient problems of stopping murderers, or reducing the need for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy. Conservative belief just makes these problems gets more messy and difficult to manage. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I have a much simpler explanation for racism, Tea Party, et al that isn't nearly as controversial and - I think - hold water. It's the Amygdala, stupid. The amygdala is that part of the limbic/reptilian part of the brain that is the seat of emotions. In many people (far more than we'd like to think)those neurochemicals of fear and anger flood the brain, overwhelming the cerebral cortex, where higher thought takes place. I'm afraid that a sizable percentage of our species has trouble controlling their emotions. This explains how smart people can be over-the-top racists. If you watch Tea Party rallies, it becomes immediately apparent that many are off-scale in terms of emotional dysfunction. Other emotionally impaired Tea Party-ers are swept along by hysterical outrage. So, bottom line, there does not have to be a racist element to these people. These birds of a feather seek safety in numbers. Again it's the amygdala at work here. You can see this on Facebook when one Tea Party-er gets all hot and bothered about something Obama supposedly did or will do (like the NRA's hoax that he will ban all handguns, when he - Obama - doesn't even have a stated gun control position) and then other Tea Party-ers follow suit in a game of "can you top this?" One of my favorite exchanges came last year when a Party-er complained about Obama and the high price of gasoline ("Huh?). The next Party-er followed up with "And have you seen the price of coffee lately?")

First everybody has some degree of prejudice be it against an ethnic group. Religion ,economic class. sexual orientation, or a mental or psychical handicap. It becomes racism when instead of being irritated by them you fail to see them as human. Conservatives have an idealistic version of reality where they constantly blame an individual for their circumstances. While certain liberals fail to hold individuals accountable for their plight. I will admit I have had numerous amounts of both bad decision to accompany some bad luck and also realize others have had it through no fault of their own more horrendous luck than I can ever conceive of it. One size does not fit all and you got to treat each person on an individual basis. Most people's fate is neither entirely bad luck nor bad decisions but a combination of both. But the well off do have a greater margin of error and far less accountabiliy !!!Unfortunately some equate being short sided narrow minded and passionately unimaginative as being a stark realist.

This study reminds me of Arthur Jensen’s study that showed that race is a factor in intelligence. Jensen found what he wanted to find and Jensen’s published findings have been adequately disproved. I think this report may be the same type of study. The researcher had a bias and his study, perhaps subconsciously, validated his bias.

I think we also need to avoid belittling those with a different perception, it only separates us more.

Several studies over past decades have focused on these issues and the authoritarian personality -- scientists wanted to understand how the Nazi movement took over and came to power. They're groundbreaking very credible studies. I agree that there are always exceptions and that we need to understand the why's so we can fix it.

But it's also important to honestly look at and come to terms with this. These attitudes are being used to 'indoctrinate' others and for decades now under the right, to strip people of civil, privacy, reproductive and human rights.

Our future depends on understanding and correcting this problem and dealing with it, up front.

Having lived in both widely and thoroughly cosmopolitan, well-educated societies and in provincial, inbred, poorly educated societies, I am inclined to believe that education and -- let's say, "exposure" -- contribute at least as much toward a *willingness* to deliberate about any proposed ideology or ideological statement, while intelligence seems to contribute the *ability* to perform such deliberation. However, note that I met rock-solid prejudice in a man who was well-educated, well-travelled, and quite intelligent, and absolute freedom from prejudice in his brother, who was about as well travelled, less well educated, and at least as intelligent. Get this: The two men, who both were my employers, and were what I considered honorable men -- were brothers! Go figure! The chief differences in them were that the first brother had married a social-climbing waitress, and the second a woman of his own "class" and background. Also, the second of the brothers had served in the military as an enlisted man, while the first had served as an officer. Work these factors out for yourselves, comparing people you know well in the same way. To further compound the matter, I once spoke with a very back-country woman, a lifelong Baptist fundamentalist in a very backward area, who utterly rejected many of the prejudicial and dogmatic tenets of her church because they seemed unreasoned -- which she explained with very poor grammar. It just is not simple, folks!

I refer people to John Dean's book Conservatives without conscience in which he discusses the authoritarian nature of many politicians and operatives within the Republican party and why the Republicans appeal to certain people with the same beliefs. The discussion of intelligence as a basis of political and racial biases is a delicate matter as Bev mentioned above. This may deserve further study but I hope it will be done carefully and not become a prejudice in itself.

On some level, the right completely gets the correlation between intelligence -- or lack of it --and that people who are less intelligent/educated are more easily manipulated. That seems to be one of the reasons they've been cutting school/educational budgets and lowering the educational standards for decades.

I know of a MENSA member who began his career writing about the worst thuggish, violent right-wing punk bands and then went on to work for Rupert Murdoch. My own kind of intelligence is the artistic type, and puzzle-type IQ tests bore/frustrate me. I'm crap at math and physics, great on literature etc. It's a complex area. Much as we might enjoy schadenfreude from reading this we can't fairly say all authoritarians are dumb. They'd be less dangerous if they were all in a Forrest GOP mold!

I think the tests merely confirm what logic and common sense dictate. And I would add all predjudices, and biases, whether Homophobic, or anti semetic, or racially induced. Intelligence also has respect for opinions and belief's. and for open discussion, Low IQ is also equated with language, and patterns of vocabulary ability and speach. The common use of inappropriate language is a sign of a Low IQ... an inability to communicate or a lack of communicative skills.

Something else to consider is that when there is a larger-than-usual turnout of voters, Democrats tend to be elected. (Which is why Republicans try to make voting difficult or impossible for those they think might vote Democrat to cast a ballot.) My conclusion is that most Americans have generally less conservative, more liberal leanings, so that when vast numbers of us vote, the results tend to favor more liberal, less conservative candidates. Also, as others have observed, most Americans like to discuss and debate, and thus reject the too-simple ideologies. Reublicans usually do a better job of getting their people to the polls because their people respond to authoritarian leadership, while Democrats are trying to herd cats, relatively speaking -- people who dislike being told what to think and how to vote. Also, Republicans want everyone to think like they do, while Democrats often don't care enough to get into the running fray - but are a formidable force once aroused -- as witness the last presidential election, when even lots of Republicans were pretty well "aroused". As Capn Canard said, that's my take and I'm sticking to it! Next?

Recently moved (and plan to move away from) Southwest Florida and am amazed by the blatant hate, racism, and hyper right wing politics predominant in the region. Then, as I speak with more and more people, I realize--despite the nice cars and homes--there is widespread stupidity here. I think the shocks of the century's first decade--the Supreme Court's perversion of our national elections, the collapse of news reporting, the failures (likely intentional) that allowed 9/11, the resulting paranoia, the Katrina failures, the Iraq lie and so much more--damaged the minds of most. Now the regional, and in many cases national, mindset is fear, hatred and ignorance.

I think that one's level of consciousness determines that person's intelligence. Those of the Republican persuasion are determined to think in only one way, which proves to me that they are not very awake, their minds are closed to any new thinking. This is sort of a cult mentality, thinking the same way as everyone else in your group. I read the other day that this kind of repetitive thinking actually wears a path in the processes, which helps to keep the mindset going. Republicans need a consciousness-raising very badly.

I agree with this study. My personal experience with conservatives is that they are stupid -- i.e., low intelligence. Generally they are very short sighted. This even goes for the conservatives who are regarded as smart -- people like Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld. THey are not smart. They are just unethical and competitive. I never grant that a person can be unethical and smart. Ethics is a part of intelligence, perhaps the most important part. Someone who is competitive, cheats, lies, destroys things in order to win is never smart. He's a thug and a criminal. And a sociopath, too. That described Rove and Rumsfled.

RMDC, are we saying, then, that the rush to destroy the planet we live on, to leave our offspring with only fly-ash and poison vapors to breathe and toxic chemicals to drink, seeds that grow only toxic foodstuffs, dead forests and the bones of extinct wildlife, a template for meanness toward all others and a god whose only function is that he can be broken up into pocket change -- are we saying this is stupid?Yea verily, I agree!

RMDC There's another element to factor into the equation: the fear response. The lower IQ relies on the (non thinking) atavistic fight or flight, safety in numbers, the military will keep me safe, unquestioning obedience to an authority figure. A higher IQ will attempt to explore several avenues and act rather than react...try diplomacy first, look for underlying causes, etc.

RMDC There's another element to factor into the equation: the fear response. The lower IQ relies on the (non thinking) atavistic fight or flight, safety in numbers, the military will keep me safe, unquestioning obedience to an authority figure. A higher IQ will attempt to explore several avenues and act rather than react...try diplomacy first, look for underlying causes, etc.

Whether you have a low IQ or a high IQ (stress can make your IQ vary) your IQ HAS you, if, when you are faced with a life or death issue, you deny what your instincts and your body chemicals are scearming at you!

OK I will make my statement as simple as possible. Our government spends are money. If you vote "Conservative" you are giving our money to the 1% "Wall Street" the Banks, Big Pharma, and the Insurance companies. If you vote Democrat you want the government to spend more on the other 99% the People. For example, universal health care, living wages and a good education for our kids with clean air.

OK I will make my statement as simple as possible. Our government spends are money. If you vote "Conservative" you are giving our money to the 1% "Wall Street" the Banks, Big Pharma, and the Insurance companies. If you vote Democrat you want the government to spend more on the other 99% the People. For example, universal health care, living wages and a good education for our kids with clean air.

If you actually believe this statement then you have not been paying attention.Some time ago President Eisenhower said "Beware of the military Industrial Complex." No one has been paying any attention since then. The only real difference between Republican and Democrat is the spelling. In case you haven't noticed the banks and corporations are still getting everything they want. Unless you can show me when or where the crooks on Wall Street that caused this "Recession" are spending time in jail. To the best of my knowledge they all are still running the asylum called Washington DC. Orders come down from "K" Street to "OUR" Government and laws are written as directed.'Nuff said . . . . .

I think you're wrong about this and its important because if we believe you & others on this issue, we'll end up with a Republican President and possibly Senate. We'll soon see the difference and will live to regret it! 1. Democrats have brought us every human, civil, privacy and reproductive right we've enjoyed over the past 5 decades.2. Yes, special interests have taken over the country and many Democrats are getting bought off, too.3. The Democrats can be brought back in line if our election system is changed and special interest money is taken out of politics.4. I would rather deal with a Democrat any day over a far right Republican -- which most of them seem to be these days They are overseeing the militarization of our police force, stripping Americans of every right we have and putting the wealth and power of the US solely into the hands of the 1%.

Black9: Your analysis is overly simplistic. For example: Universal Health Care (ie), ObamaCare is goingto profit "Big Pharma and Insurance companies. "Living wages" are being deflated by our defense budget, our tax structure and sending jobs overseas,and political candidates being indebted to WS political contributors which encourage all of the above. As far as "A good education for our kid's with clean air" which should be the top priority,it is currently as elusive as grasping for straws. It is not high on the priority list or an important MO of either party. Republicans and Democrats are battling over things they believe will bring in votes & contributions. We need a fearless political candidate who operates above the fray to tackle the really important issues; such as the quality of life and the future of our children and our nation.

The US and UK are very class conscious, segregated societies with long and recent histories of official racism. I'd like to see the study replicated in a society where there is more daily mingling among diverse peoples, e.g. Canada, Malaysia, India... It may be that people with lower IQs do fine in integrated societies.

From my observations around the world, racism exists everywhere, often manipulated as a power play.I grew up (1940' 50's) in a fairly out-of-the-way small town in the Southern Scottish "Borders" with but a few dark skinned or foreign inhabitants but they, including the owners of the one Chinese restaurant, were totally integrated IF THEY WANTED TO BE -my first independent client as a fledgling architect was an Italian ("Iti"!??) owner of two cafes and a fish-'n-chip shop. We had our own rhyming slang for them all but then we "slagged' each other mercilessly too, long before "PC" was ever thought of. Now I believe that in England, they even have an ASB ("Anti-Social Behavior") clause for which anybody not being conformist can be arrested if the cops think they are out of line enough. We have Blair's so-called "New Labor" to thank for that!The closest I can figger is that one can "Choose to be dumb", or Racist, or hateful and pass it on to kids or impressionable people. I don't think you can call David Duke "Dumb", or even Newt Grinch, who'd like to colonize the Moon in the name of Gawd knows what!My experience in the South is that the more ambitious middle classes "Choose" to perpetrate the segregationist attitudes into class as well as racial prejudices for their own ends: I've personally confronted two D.A's in Kentucky for their comfortable and regular use of the word "Nigger".It's never easy to encapsulate simply.

The above reference to Bob Altemeyer's free pdf, The Authoritarians, might be found to be very enlightening. It's got a lot of Theodor Adoro's work behind it and has been used as a referencefor John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience." Also, FYI, I.Q. testing has come a ways since the 60s and now gives a better picture than conservative writers would have you believe. Here's a little info - it's from WikiPedia, but it's what I remember when I had courses in psychological testing: Because the Wechsler tests included non-verbal items (known as performance scales) as well as verbal items for all test-takers,... Form I of the WAIS [Wexler Adult Intelligence Scale--there's one for Children also] surpassed the Stanford-Binet tests in popularity by the 1960s.[2]Wechsler defined intelligence as "... the global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment."If you apply that criteria to somebody like the Newt, you may discover that he ain't so bright after all, as Chris Matthews would have us believe.

to correct both the article and some of the comments this must be understood. instead of left and right brain thinking (you can find left brained people who are very liberal even though they are not the "artistic creative types) in cognitive theory, first we think, and then we feel. the emotion comes from the thoughts and not vice versa. three people can see the same event and have different emotions about that event. surprise, happiness, and fear. the way to get out of clinical depression for example, is to stop "stinkin thinkin" my own term for neurotic type thoughts. like black or white thinking which is the m. o. of the right wing. most of the major problems we face have two sides that must be considered. all scientists understand the law of unintended consequences....so, one can make a case, that racism and bigotry are pathological states, and are caused, possibly, by a weak ego which in turn is caused by lack of intelligence. however, the superego gets involved for high i.Q. ultra right wing zealots. that too, causes pathological problems. remember the kid in colorado who was stoned to death because he was gay? not all of his murderers were of under average intelligence. they had a parent in their head that told them that this boy was a danger, and not a human being, etc. of course, their own homosexual urges may also have had something to do with their actions.

Thank you for your comments, bobby t. I have not read all comments, but already have the impression that folks mistake intelligence for neurosis, or any other disorder not to mention being carefully taught. Intelligence may be channeled into many types of thinking or prejudice. Check back over history and the characters who were highly intelligent in their maneuvers.

Morality, ethics, grandiose motives, have nothing to do with intelligence. Not even followers can regularly be deemed unintelligent. It is complicated because the mind is easily influenced.

First everybody has some degree of prejudice be it against an ethnic group. Religion ,economic class. sexual orientation, or a mental or psychical handicap. It becomes racism when instead of being irritated by them you fail to see them as human. Conservatives have an idealistic version or reality where they constantly blame an individual for their circumstances. Where certain liberals fail to hold individuals accountable for their plight. I will admit I have had numerous amounts of both bad decision to accompany some bad luck and also realize others have had it through no fault of their own more horrendous luck than I can ever conceive of it. One size does not fit all and you got to treat each person on an individual basis. Most people's fate is neither entirely bad luck nor bad decisions but a combination of both. But the well off do have a greater margin of error and far less accountabiliy !!! Being Short sided narrow minded and passionately unimaginatives does equate with a a stark realist . I make all kinds of typos so often I might be posting the same response twice. But link on the yahoo link and it seems conservatives can neither survive criticism or own up to their mistake. If you notice Obama unlike Bush was able to admit mistakes

Ah, reiverpacific, now I get the name! Grew up in Southern Scottish Borders? New there was something I liked about you. Hence reiver from the term border reivers or raiders, and pacific cos you're in USA now. Yes? Travel broadens the mind too! Perhaps we should have bios for all us regulars so we can get a handle on where we're at. Man.

This one's a can of worms, isn't it? Hard to find words to express an opinion without sounding either snobbish or -- oops -- prejudiced! From all of our input, IMO we agree that there are plenty of causes for lockstep behavior and for prejudice. Cure: Whenever someone says or does something that YOU think and feel is bigotted or even merely unconsidered, say so, quickly and firmly, but quietly. Keep it low keep, but be very clear about your opinion. It is NOT necessary, polite, politically or morally correct, safe, or wise to tolerate bigotry, whether it arises from a sense of inferiority, parental training, fear, ignorance, lack of education, or limited intelligence. I've been doing this since about 1967, because I got fed up with feeling that I should be polite to people who didn't care whether or who they offended. Because I was very timid about speaking up at first, I used the calmest, quietest voice I could manage. Even though I now no longer care whether someone gets his or her fur ruffled, I still try to be non-combative -- and never once have my remarks done more than startle someone and shut them up. Most of the time, they lead to conversation about the differences in our perceptions. I often have the vast satisfaction of hearing the other person say, I hadn't looked at it that way, or, I hadn't thought of that. Aaahh! Solid gold! But then, I learn from them, too. Even better!

It has been my experience and observation that people who do not read a wide variety of work: novels, classics, biographies, etc. have a more herd-like response to life and are more easily swayed by group think.I have an acquaintance who prides herself on being a world traveler: from the perspective of 5-star hotels, AC limos, and a private yacht. Contrast that to the backpack trekker staying in hostels and with locals. Who is the more enlightened world traveler?My own prejudice is that upon entering a home with overflowing bookshelves I automatically think "Aha..liberal"

Majikman, you are a man (I guess?) after my own heart. A room without books is bare. Nice to know there are lots of readers here, and not just on-line readers: The knowledge is a comfort in my old age.

Nah...Majik is my horse and smarter than a bunch of repugs I know...at least he judges people by their character, as well as does my dog.It's lots of fun using the opposite sex for a user name and watching the assumptions pop up. Alas, I give myself away.

There are some, most revealing, very broad brush-strokes abounding here. The KKK (lumped-into the article, but not in the UK study) certainly did not vote for the first republican president, 'The Great Emancipatior', Abraham Lincoln.

Why is it those who are the first to accuse others of being racist ... are apparently:1. Racist (often self-loathning) and2. 'Pull the race card' (claiming some 'moral authority' to bully people they deem 'inferior') and3. Are powemad micro-managers (AKA meddling in everything)?

The 'DixieCrats' proped-up every democrat / 'left-wing':administration, house and senate - for over 100-years, until ... WACO.

Suffice to say, when the first thing on someone's mind is racism and they start accusing people of being racist - you need not look any farther to find one. Moreover - censorship and denial of history are amongst the other nasty tricks such types embrace. --infohiway

Your post is as simpleminded as martinfres'. The reason that the KKK did not vote for Lincoln is that they didn't form until long after Lincoln was assassinated. But I agree with your items 1 - 3. They describe the right wing to a T.

The Dixiecrats began to join the republicans after the Democrats passed and Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, a very long time before WACO. You will notice that the Act wasn't passed with the help of the Dixiecrats or the republicans.

And trying to ignore the evidence that the right wing is much more prejudiced than the left wing isn't going to fly. Playing word games loses every time to evidence. Check out the studies done on the TPs concerning racism.

Oh come on! We've all seen and listened to the right's racist baiting of Obama for 3 years and more recently watched the right cheer when Newt said that black children should should work as janitors "to give them an experience of working".

We watched the Tea Party rallies against health care reform with thugs walking around with racist signs and threats (bringing loaded GUNS to the rallies.

disinfohiway,Hey whipping boy, your rant is semivague & yet revealing. Those three points ironically lean toward the Right, historically, e.g., in the 1890s overtly & up through today, although more as a gray area. The Left hasn't historically seen Blacks, e.g., as inferior, quite the contrary. Repubs & at least some Dems in the 1890s, e.g., thought that nonwhite peoples were unfit for self-goverment, as well as being inferior, subhuman.

At risk of nitpicking, it must be asked why antisemitism is differentiated here from other racism. What is special about antisemitic racism? The term "antisemitism" needs be queried when it pops up, because it has so often been deployed in defence of the most racially exclusive state on earth.

Look you blokes - every IQ study ever made has clearly demonstrated that East Asians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc have the highest IQ's in the world.

I suggest that next election for Congress you guys forget about Republicans & Democrats and vote only for ethnic American East Asians. That should sort you out!

Sorry reiverpacific but my genetic makeup and funny bone has been strangely affected by the (known)500 years my ancestors lived on the Scottish Borders and what's worse, at one time they were Covenanters too!

- every IQ study ever made has clearly demonstrated that East Asians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc have the highest IQ's in the world.

Hogwash! There are IQ tests and IQ tests. There are many different areas in which one can be tested & labeled bright or dumb, and I'd like to cite my favorite example: Barbara Streisand. She is not noted for an extremely high IQ, and some even argue to the contrary. Personally I am not privy to her overall IQ profile; however, when she opens her mouth to sing, who can deny her "genius" in that one isolated area?

On the the hand, I've know individuals (in MENSA) who have +/- 150 IQ's; who can tell you how many angels can dance on the had of a pin but who, practically, can't find their own ass with both hands. Nuclear plants across the whole USA are full of these guys!

Now what? To another topic (after you couldn't back the previous ones)? I thought at one time that Israelis & Palestinians had the same semitic roots, although the word antisemitic has become THE phrase against antiJewish oppression, & understandably, given, e.g., the Nazi Holocaust.

David Starr: You have spoken as both an historian and linguist. Thank you! I hope this helps disinfohiway understand both aspects of the term better.

Anti-semetic means Jew-hater.

Anti-Jewish oppression is how those of us who claim to be without prejudicial feelings regarding Jewish people and why we writhe at the misinterpretation of the term, due to the Nazi Holocaust when Jews were slaughtered & tortured like animals. Liberals pride themselves on being anti-racism, anti-homophobic, anti-gender inequality, & they should be against anti-semetism. It is very disturbing when posters on a liberal post make derogatory remarks which demonstrate bigotry & hatred for any of the above groups; all have suffered from bigotry in the past,

dorianb@fuse.net,After reading subsequent posts, I think that I can conclude then that there are different tribes or ethnic semetic groups, e.g., Jews & Arabs. How ironic then that one is oppressing another through an ultrantionlist myth of religious supremacy base on "biblical prophecy" for " the Chosen People." I will have to clarify that I'm not antisemetic, but I'm also not a blind, apologist akin to an AIPAC lobbyist supporting Isaeli ultranationalism which the Israeli Right in particular is fond of, e.g., trying to annex more territory & increasing settlements.

dorianbfuse.net.while I believe, that people who are prejudist, are often poorly educated. They are also insecure, afraid that these "others" are taking, what SHOULD be coming to them.

Right now I am VERY worried that the actions of the Israeli government is putting ALL JEWS in serious danger. Iam definitely NOT antisemitic.

Denmark and Holland were the only countries, who actively protected Jews and helped them escape during WWII, at enormous risk to the people involved in the rescue. Jews were never persecuted in Denmark, so I am brought up well.

Now The government in Israel is making life incredibly difficult for the Palestinians. I have read about Salam Faiyad (not sure of the spelling) The prime minister is doing an impressive job in the West Bank together with Mahmud Abbas, it seems to no avail.

The Israelis are treating them, the way they were treated. THEY are now the oppressors. Netanyahu does not want a TWO State solution, and since the Palestinian have large families they will soon be the majority, and SECOND class citizens.HOW is that going to work??

Unfortunately when you voice concerns like this, you are often attacked and called an anti Semite. As I stated I'm NOT, but I do worry that Jews world wide will be in danger, because of it.Comments anybody??

The KKK costumes and especially the hoods in the picture, remind me of men wanting to wear their phallus symbols (a mans secondary "head") on their primary heads. But, instead of men wearing those costumes, the costumes are wearing the men's secondary heads! lol

I am a person of mixed ethnicity, a "hapa" if you will. (For those of you who never heard of a hapa, it is simple. It was originally a derogatory word, but now has become endeared (pretty much the way "Queer" is within the GLBT Community). Essentially a hapa is a Hawai'ian word that means a mix, portionate, or half or he like. I am a hapa myself. I am 87.5% European and 12.5% Japanese. This my ETHNIC background. However RACIALY I wpuld be considered to be 95% White (caucasian) and only 5% Japanese. (My eyes is the only sign of any Japanese racial makeup). In Japan it is assumed that the country is "homogenous" or "monoracial", i.e. just Japanese. But that is just plain not true! There are Chinese, Korean, Brasilian, Caucasian (hakujin) and indeed some african as well! Let0s not forgetthe Ainu and other people as well! It may not be as promenent as the States, but nevertheless it still exists. There are conflicting views that there is rampant discrimination against those who are not "pure Japanese" (or thought to be such). But Japan is a very polite society. Racialism generally (oh there are pockets of such) but by far the vast majority are not so blatant as many Americans are like in the States.

Actually I am quite happy to be a hapa. I think it is challenging and exciting. Definitely not boring! Hapa people in my opinion are also quite sexy as well.

I perused the Web to look up KKK. A very good article came up Hundred Years of Terror by the southern Poverty Law Center.

May also take a look at the fact that these haters were from Tennessee and from Rebel soldiers wanting to change things. This movement flourished and swept the South but it has a great hold in the West...so you see the iq...has flowed along with the hate. It has had an upsurt since the 60's along with a different 1%er and other WhiteSupremist Groups again feeding hate and living off fears.

The first were hatred of Blacks and Northerners but have since seeded into anyone they have an attitude about...Catholics, Jews, ... Matters not which party...both were at fault, yes Republicans tried to change in early 1900's but the Democrats led the real fight later. The Monster is still alive...Priests, Ministers were as much a part of this then as now.

While I'm sure this will stir outrage from the right, they have no problem characterizing blacks, gays and women as "inferior", though they're now much more careful about how they express it! They have no problem characterizing liberals as "elites" for liberal thinking.

I must again refer people to Arthur Silber -- he has a new post up at http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/01/seeming-madness-suffocating-unreality.html

in which he mentions racism explicitely a few times and also gives exposition and background which I can use to buttress the following statement:

The intelligence of the 'conservatives' has often been that cunning of the predatory social animals which hunt in packs (even being cannabalistic -- chimps have been known to do this, and also various insects).

Such human predators pose as truly social beings in a more universal sense than they are for purposes of their goals -- that, objectively, is less intelligent in that it is significantly more destructive than real social cooperation, even ultimately self-destrucive, but there is some local optimization (in evolutionary terms) so it can work in the short term, propagating that behavior forward in time.

We now reach a point in history where such predation exitentially threatens the entire species, and the environment. If our overall 'cultural intelligence' does not override such relative stupidity and insanity, we are likely done for (it may already be too late).

At least when the flying saucer people come to visit they will see our dead monuments are nicer than those left on Easter Island by that extinct culture.

Infohiway you are absolutely correct. My understanding is that all Arabs are Semites but not all Jews are - far from it. Arabs are a people and Judaism is a religion. You can convert to Judaism but you cannnot become a Semite. That is what is so laughable about the Israeli politician some years ago saying that that murderous nutcase Assad of Syria was an ant-Semite. I have even seen this ignorance displayed in British, American and Australian newspaper articles as well. Back when everybody took the Bible as Gospel (sorry)Semites were named as the sons of Shem and African blacks the sons of Ham, both being sons of Noah. So - If I say something hateful about an Etheopian Jew (which I wouldn't)- I am not being anti-semetic - maybe anti-hametic? Crazy hey!

My political leanings certainly make me want to believe this. But I have taught study design & stats all my career and I have to urge caution on this sort of thing. Causality is hard to establish here. Kids with low IQs probably live in neighborhoods which have economic conditions and ethnic makeups and political and social attitudes that are like those described. But it is entirely possible that all of these things are caused by other factors, so the things measured in this study may be correlated but not causally related. For example poverty can affect IQ in children and it certainly affects social & political outlook in adults, whether it be their parents or those kids grown up. Low IQ per se may not be causing social & political outlook. Go read Joe Bageant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus" for an American example.

Barbara K's all-caps cry: "NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN" resonates with me but for somewhat different reasons. My take: the Tea Party must be defeated. Period! These people who coalesce to form the Tea Party are a long-term endangerment to our country simply because the angry whites who go on rampages (actual or verbal) are the same types who burned down the library at Alexandria, thus sending civilization backward for centuries. A subset of our species has ALWAYS been an endangerment to the rest of us. If a national rebuke of the Tea Party means every Republican down to dogcatcher goes down to defeat, then so be it. The politics of ugly took a giant leap with Lee Atwater and Nixon. 45 years of ugly is enough. So - yes - NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN (until it's safe to do so once again).

While the results of this study accords with my life experience that racism tends to predominate in "low IQ" social conservatives, it occurs to me that IQ tests themselves may be questionable and may be very biased.

The IQ questions are devised by highly educated people with their own cultural biases. Thus we may be comparing the highly educated with those who are not, rather than testing for innate stupidity versus innate intelligence.

Maybe "simplistic" beliefs like racism comes not from those with innate inability to "think", but from those whose family and life circumstances deprived them of exposure to different types of people and ideas or whose only exposure to those of other races and ideas came through national media coverage, which is, itself, designed to expose folks to only what is acceptable to the corporate media owners.

Folks who grow up in limited circumstances tend to reflect that in their own attitudes.

In contrast, I think of many Downs'Syndrome people I have met who definitely have limited mental capabilities for complex ideas, but who, generally, treat everyone they met as individuals, to be liked or not liked based on that individual's immediate behaviors. They tend not to generalize as to large groups of people having the same characteristics.

This is a great study.They should have done the study in the state of Arizona. Just look at what is going on in this state, with Governor Jan Brewer she must have a very low IQ because of what is going on with all the crazy laws she is trying to get pasted.

Martin Luther King, Jr. endorsed Kennedy over Nixon in 1960, and was more closely aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican for the remainder of his life. That he was raised Republican before the political realignment that wedded the GOP to white supremacists is irrelevant. Martinfre's message is no more grounded in reality than someone saying "if you don't like the Federal Reserve vote for the Democrats because Andrew Jackson vetoed the Bank of the US recharter bill back in the 1830s." Southern Democratic politicians' ties to racism 50 years ago, or Woodrow Wilson's white supremacy 100 years ago, are no more relevant than Andrew Jackson's banking policies 180 years ago.

Stupid conservatives will of course fall for the nonsense people like Martinfre spout every single time. Whether Martinfre is a stupid conservative parroting the nonsense or a smarter conservative cynically deliberately misleading people I wouldn't presume to guess.

Tom: this is true: One reason the tendency exists in "low-intelligence adults" is becasue often (but not always), they have had less exposure to people of different races, religions and ethnicities. The other reason is "low intelligence" people are more easily conditioned by others because they have a tendency to NOT question or analyze what they have learned by conditioning or acculteration. Socially conservative ideologies are simplistic and poorly educated people like Palin and Santorium feel most comfortable with simplistic and authoritarian ideas because the act of questioning, challenging, discourse, reflection & analysis arise from a more complex and unfamiliar way of thinking about anything. Cognitive processing is generally stagnant in these folks because they're adverse to broadening their mind & to new ideas & upsetting the status quo.

dorianb@fuse.net I suggest you educate yourself mate and hey -read what I said. A Semite like Assad cannot be anti-semetic BECAUSE he is semetic! If the meaning of being anti-semetic has become being anti Jewish then it shouldn't have because Jews are not the only semites in the world. As for the Holocaust - who on earth brought that into it or made light of it? Now how about focusing on the current Palestinian Holocaust?By the way so called anti-semetism did not lead to WW11.

0zken: Read my comment again. Semantics is often idiomatic. Anti-Semetic is a derogatory term directed at Jewish people and is not used for Palestinians. I am very aware of the Palestinian issues and it saddens me but it is in no way a Holacaust. The Holacaust and the torutre in the cencentration camps and Hitler's destructive aspirations to rid the world of Jews is what it is. Hitler, who was an icon of anti-semetism and it was central to the nazi Regime. I appreciate your writing me, Ozken, Arabs are semetic, as you say, and there are people who are prejudiced against Arabs but the word Anti-semetic is a derogatory term for Jews, not Arabs.

Ozken: I would like to know, if you do not mind my asking what age you are since you believe anti-semetism has become an "anti-jewish" term. BTW, I am not unaware of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Americans taking their time to get involved in WW11. I am speaking of Hitler's Nazi Regime aimed at destruction of Jews which was at the core of WW11. Hitler was a megalomaniac psychotic (with Jewish blood) and Germany was going through a depression and all these things played a part...

This must be why so many of us have argued ourselves silly and banged our heads into the wall until we reach the other side of the wall trying, in vain, to reason with most 'conservatives' only to get absolutely NOWHERE. I've long suspected and seen that most of these people simply do not have ability to 'get it'.

I've been looking at this research. I think it's true that there is a statistically significant relationship between low native intelligence and prejudice, most conservatives are not dumb. I think for all the human family the struggle to have sufficient empathy for others is a crucial one. It is empathy we lack. And the study noted that often prejudice is a factor when we know little of other people who in some way are very different from us and those we commonly associate with.

This is just silly. First off, there is no scientific definition of "right-wing ideals" and therefore the "correlation" is to something entirely subjective and vague.

Secondly, correlation does not mean causation.

Thirdly, while the article says that the study controlled for "education," I wonder how one finds lots of people with sub-80 IQs who have Ph.Ds? Smart people are more likely to have been in heterogenous professional, educational, and social settings, which would tend to be an antidote for prejudice.

Fourth, IQ is partially dependent upon where and how one grew up. So is segregation. IQ is partially dependent upon one's command of language. So is segregation. People with low IQs are probably more likely to have grown up in a socially segregated environment, and people who have grown up in a socially segregated environment are more likely to be racists. But it does not follow that racism is "caused" by a low IQ.

TO Martinfre"side note: The klan is the child of democrats, do your own research."

ACTUALLY, the Klan was first formed against Catholics. It was active in the northern states for this purpose first during the early 1900's. This whole discussion of who is smart, dumb, conservative or liberal is down to the point that we must decide if we are going to admit or not that there has been a stealth agenda for years against desegregation. This agenda fed by the conservatives was meant to slowly, but steadily use lies and misinformation campaigns through media to use less-informed, less educated and vulnerable people to create a population explosion in conservative voters. Those people MUST be controlled by media by Fox "News" and constantly fed propaganda to keep them inflamed against their own safety and health and wealth. Conservatives can't win any other way. The concept that if everyone contributes something, and everyone is protected equally, and everyone has equal rights, and religion is separate from government, you have a DEMOCRACY.

While you may be right in a literal sense, you have to understand that low IQ means that person has difficulty with complex, analytical thinking in most cases. Without that ability it is very easy to be targeted and exploited with clever propaganda. Those are the people who find themselves in the grips of those who can convince those low level thinkers to trust politicians who are using those people to vote against their own best interests. What do you think all the conservative 'THINK TANKS" DO ALL DAY?

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.